ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th August 2017, 08:57 AM   #121
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,796
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post

However, isn't open-mindedness an intellectual virtue?

No, it's not a virtue if you think equal time and effort should be spent on the most absurd nutty beliefs as well as the best "proven" and properly tested and explained answers.

You are making the same sort of claim as US Creationists at the Dover Trial, who were telling US schools that school pupils should be taught "both sides of the argument", where they meant creationism vs. evolution. They were trying to force schools to teach creationism as an alternative belief to evolution. But in the trial they were exposed as monumental liars who had for decades been trying to deceive schools (and everyone else) into teaching fundamentalist religious beliefs in biology classes (claiming it was equally valid).

At the end of the trial the Judge (who was himself a practising Christian) told the creationist defendants that they had openly and deliberately lied to the court, and that they had knowingly tried to pass off religious beliefs as some sort of science under the lable "irreducible complexity", but which in fact (as the judge ruled) was a thoroughly dishonest attempt to force the teaching of religious creationism upon school children whilst claiming it was actually "science".


Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Could you say that you really gave these ideas a chance? Did you really look into it or did you dismiss it off-hand?

This is really the same thing as the first quote above. Like the creationists at the Dover Trial, you are trying to claim that we should give equal credibility, time & effort to investigating such things as Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design as we give to studying science and studying why and how science has shown all those religious claims to be completely untrue (in fact, very often, dangerously untrue indoctrination).

Last edited by IanS; 13th August 2017 at 10:04 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 09:03 AM   #122
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,592
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Have you dismissed the Flying Spaghetti Monster off-hand? Even though it met your criteria for being a creator god?
Great Question!!! Though there is the problem that if the FSM is clearly such and supposedly the only one then how do you account for the Great Arachnid* whose webs hold all of space together and who will wind us in her soft webbing if we have praised her and done her bidding through our brief existences!!!*







* Another of the many fake religions - this one was a small tract intended to be handed out to the religious in trade for their offer of their tract. Both, of course, had the same value - but the G.A. one was much more interesting!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 09:07 AM   #123
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,592
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
All the cool kids have got one...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
But, like, aren't the cool kids , you know. dead?????
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 09:24 AM   #124
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,770
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I don't believe I have. Like I said, I look for counter-evidence.
Have you found any counter evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 11:18 AM   #125
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,815
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I guess the question it comes down to is why do some people believe in the supernatural/paranormal and others don't believe in any of that but may have a naturalistic world view instead. Is it primarily environmental? - Certain people are just raised around other religious believers and adopt a supernatural world view? Or does it have to do primarily with the persons psychology, with people just being born with different psychologies? Or is it something else?

I don't consider myself a complete blind believer, I actually sit down and raise various objections to my beliefs. Despite that I still find myself leaning toward the supernatural. Maybe I should read more of the research that counters belief in the supernatural. Maybe belief or non-belief is just a matter of bias. I will continue to look into this.

However, isn't open-mindedness an intellectual virtue? Could you say that you really gave these ideas a chance? Did you really look into it or did you dismiss it off-hand?
I'm thinking by this response, as you've ignored a lot of pertinent questions and comments relating to your other questions, you're not interested in looking too deeply at your belief systems and would rather just preach at someone (in essence).

That's fine, of course. Just pointing out your glossing over most of the thread you started and it's being noticed.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 11:41 AM   #126
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,096
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Reality, as we think we experience it, is real?

Your question is confusing.

Do we think we experience reality? Provably, yes.

Do we actually experience reality? Provably, not entirely.

Is reality real? I would have no idea. I behave as though that which can be proven inside my version of reality is real.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 12:46 PM   #127
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,772
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Have you found any counter evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
yes
__________________
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:10 PM   #128
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,505
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Your question is confusing.

Do we think we experience reality? Provably, yes.

Do we actually experience reality? Provably, not entirely.

Is reality real? I would have no idea. I behave as though that which can be proven inside my version of reality is real.
That reality that we experience is real is an unfalsifiable assumption that all who are mentally healthy make on a practical level, for practical reasons. It cannot honestly be falsifiably tested itself and there is plenty of reason to believe it to be the case, thus, it serves as an easy example of a case where your statement was false, without touching on the more complex subject of what actually are reasons to believe, going by the empirical evidence, and how reasonable those reasons actually are. One can delve into VR, hallucinations, and the like, but such are little more than tangential distractions to the point.

Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I guess the question it comes down to is why do some people believe in the supernatural/paranormal and others don't believe in any of that but may have a naturalistic world view instead. Is it primarily environmental? - Certain people are just raised around other religious believers and adopt a supernatural world view? Or does it have to do primarily with the persons psychology, with people just being born with different psychologies? Or is it something else?
Questions like these that ask about a simplified form of the end results of numerous complex psychological processes that end up all over the place for numerous reasons and can still shift over time while the system still functions would require rather messy answers to address properly. The short answer is that both nature and nurture play their parts in varying amounts depending on the circumstances of the case in question.

Biologically, for example, humans have an inborn tendency to seek pattern and intent in the happenings that surround us. That has served us well in many ways evolutionarily, but tendencies of pretty much all sorts can be misapplied. Water is not necessarily actually drawn towards or trying to get to seas and oceans, despite the clear pattern of rivers and streams that flow towards them, for example. Nor are floods necessarily the result of various water gods getting angry for whatever reason.

Adopted beliefs in the supernatural frequently include the concepts that things are being caused for a reason and that the causer(s) can be convinced, at least sometimes, to work in one's favor (or that one can directly manipulate such things in one's favor). That can provide a fair measure of comfort, security, and, when it comes to things like prayer, a feeling that one is actually doing something to help without actually doing anything physically substantial or particularly inconvenient (also, helplessness tends to be quite unpleasant). Supernatural beliefs don't always include such, though, given how broad the category is. As a general rule, however, there's plenty of potential emotional reasons of many kinds behind various beliefs in the supernatural. That emotional reasons frequently have a limited relationship with rationality and logic tends to make such arguments decidedly less attractive to people who value verifiable truth over very possibly false comfort or distinctly likely deception, though.


Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I don't consider myself a complete blind believer, I actually sit down and raise various objections to my beliefs. Despite that I still find myself leaning toward the supernatural. Maybe I should read more of the research that counters belief in the supernatural. Maybe belief or non-belief is just a matter of bias. I will continue to look into this.
While some research counters specific supernatural claims, more of what you might be interested in might be the broader swath research that helps put much of the reasoning into perspective and looking at the fundamentally practical logic that largely points out that the reasoning behind supernatural claims tends to be based on remarkably untrustworthy reasoning. How does that pastor actually know that the Bible is true, for example?

Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
However, isn't open-mindedness an intellectual virtue? Could you say that you really gave these ideas a chance? Did you really look into it or did you dismiss it off-hand?
As a general rule, yes, actual open-mindedness is an intellectual virtue, with the note that open-mindedness is much different from simple acceptance. Valid arguments are still required for claims to be treated as worthy of serious consideration... and when claimants have historically failed to provide such, over and over and over, it does tend to indicate that there's fairly certainly other forces in play that are far more likely to also be the case for similar future claims.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 13th August 2017 at 01:33 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:29 PM   #129
Wonder234
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I'm thinking by this response, as you've ignored a lot of pertinent questions and comments relating to your other questions, you're not interested in looking too deeply at your belief systems and would rather just preach at someone (in essence).

That's fine, of course. Just pointing out your glossing over most of the thread you started and it's being noticed.
I'm sorry for ignoring previous posts, but when I posted this I did not really have it worked out fully enough to really be worthy of being an argued idea. I may not be able to work it out fully enough. I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time, I should not have posted. As far as defending my claim goes, I am withdrawing from this thread. Once again, sorry.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:39 PM   #130
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,860
(Firesign Theatre) Oh he's no fun, he fell right over!
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:40 PM   #131
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,815
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I'm sorry for ignoring previous posts, but when I posted this I did not really have it worked out fully enough to really be worthy of being an argued idea. I may not be able to work it out fully enough. I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time, I should not have posted. As far as defending my claim goes, I am withdrawing from this thread. Once again, sorry.
Personally, it's only a waste of time for everyone if you decide to not continue posting in the thread.

You've gotten lots of polite, positive, but direct feedback on your thoughts. Why not continue to address them and work through your ideas further? Why not use the people here to help develop it, or even help you change your mind?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:40 PM   #132
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,873
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I guess the question it comes down to is why do some people believe in the supernatural/paranormal and others don't believe in any of that but may have a naturalistic world view instead. Is it primarily environmental? -[...]
However, isn't open-mindedness an intellectual virtue? Could you say that you really gave these ideas a chance? Did you really look into it or did you dismiss it off-hand?
So far, you seem to believe that all ideas are equally valid. That notion is called post-modernism by at least one name, and it is nonsense. Look it up.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:42 PM   #133
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,505
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I'm sorry for ignoring previous posts, but when I posted this I did not really have it worked out fully enough to really be worthy of being an argued idea. I may not be able to work it out fully enough. I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time, I should not have posted. As far as defending my claim goes, I am withdrawing from this thread. Once again, sorry.
Even so, if you have questions or seek advice, feel free to ask. That you admit that there are issues with your original claim is already a sign of greater honesty and introspection than many of those who have made somewhat similar threads.

Also of some minor note, these forums used to be the JREF forums, with the E for educational being one of the major goals for the forums, and a number of the posters still embrace the sentiment.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 01:58 PM   #134
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,096
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
That reality that we experience is real is an unfalsifiable assumption that all who are mentally healthy make on a practical level, for practical reasons. It cannot honestly be falsifiably tested itself and there is plenty of reason to believe it to be the case, thus, it serves as an easy example of a case where your statement was false, without touching on the more complex subject of what actually are reasons to believe, going by the empirical evidence, and how reasonable those reasons actually are. One can delve into VR, hallucinations, and the like, but such are little more than tangential distractions to the point.

I disagree with you completely.

"Reality" is a large and nebulous concept. There is no reason to prove it, there's hardly any ability to define it. We've tested what happens when cars hit people, though. And it's consistent with our models of physics. So, I feel that believing in not walking into traffic has been scientifically proven.

If you'd like to wander into traffic, please be my guest.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 02:26 PM   #135
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,770
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I don't believe I have. Like I said, I look for counter-evidence.
Let me know if you ever find that counter-evidence.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 08:03 PM   #136
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,505
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I disagree with you completely.

"Reality" is a large and nebulous concept. There is no reason to prove it, there's hardly any ability to define it. We've tested what happens when cars hit people, though. And it's consistent with our models of physics. So, I feel that believing in not walking into traffic has been scientifically proven.

If you'd like to wander into traffic, please be my guest.
Looks like you've strayed a fair bit here and are trying to offer up inconsequential specifics in place of addressing the actual issues in play. To be completely clear, nothing that I said even remotely suggests that one should try to get hit by a car. If anything, much the opposite would be the case. All you're doing here is trying to hand wave the point I made away and then trying to divert attention to something of highly questionable relevance. Trying to building a castle that remains floating in the air after having all of its foundation removed is generally not especially workable in reality, and that seems to be essentially what you want to be doing in the quoted post. If you'd like to offer up a meaningful argument for your disagreement, though, feel free.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 13th August 2017 at 08:04 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 09:43 PM   #137
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,096
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Looks like you've strayed a fair bit here and are trying to offer up inconsequential specifics in place of addressing the actual issues in play. To be completely clear, nothing that I said even remotely suggests that one should try to get hit by a car. If anything, much the opposite would be the case. All you're doing here is trying to hand wave the point I made away and then trying to divert attention to something of highly questionable relevance. Trying to building a castle that remains floating in the air after having all of its foundation removed is generally not especially workable in reality, and that seems to be essentially what you want to be doing in the quoted post. If you'd like to offer up a meaningful argument for your disagreement, though, feel free.

Sure: Define reality in a non self-referential way.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 12:22 PM   #138
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,492
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I don't consider myself a complete blind believer, I actually sit down and raise various objections to my beliefs. Despite that I still find myself leaning toward the supernatural. Maybe I should read more of the research that counters belief in the supernatural. Maybe belief or non-belief is just a matter of bias. I will continue to look into this.
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Some people believe in the supernatural and some don't. As for me I'll try not to get people to believe what I believe, but continue to look for counter-evidence.
That's right. You don't have to renounce to your human nature just to kowtow to science, especially when science is not asking that from you at all but at most some guys who are more the antitheist kind than atheists. Psychological make-up is also behind antitheism in atheist disguise; have troubles to stand against an abusive mother and you will need to negate the womb that "god" represents as "you come from nothing", all of that not for any rational reason but just in a rational disguise.

Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I'm sorry for ignoring previous posts, but when I posted this I did not really have it worked out fully enough to really be worthy of being an argued idea. I may not be able to work it out fully enough. I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time, I should not have posted. As far as defending my claim goes, I am withdrawing from this thread. Once again, sorry.
Please, don't. You don't need to make any sense to be a typical poster here. Keep posting while that fosters your intellectuality or provides you with some pleasurable moments. Your search is your strength.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 02:10 AM   #139
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,796
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
That's right. You don't have to renounce to your human nature just to kowtow to science, especially when science is not asking that from you at all but at most some guys who are more the antitheist kind than atheists. Psychological make-up is also behind antitheism in atheist disguise; have troubles to stand against an abusive mother and you will need to negate the womb that "god" represents as "you come from nothing", all of that not for any rational reason but just in a rational disguise.


Please, don't. You don't need to make any sense to be a typical poster here. Keep posting while that fosters your intellectuality or provides you with some pleasurable moments. Your search is your strength.

I hesitate to get into this discussion, and I should probably just ignore the above remarks, because I know from many years here (and on previous forums such as RatSkep and the old Richard Dawkins Forum) that even atheists here often react with hostility if anyone has the temerity to say that all of us should actually be anti-theist in the sense of speaking out against many aspects of religious beliefs & practices in Christianity and Islam (to take the two biggest and most obvious worldwide religions).

But - when you say "anti theists", you sound as if you are criticising atheists or others who are critical of religions such as Christianity and Islam. Is that right? You are saying that atheists (or others) are doing something wrong or being unreasonable if they are critical of Christianity and Islam?

Obviously theists themselves are not likely to be very critical of their religion. They might say that their local church should have a better car park, or that the Vicar/Priest should speak louder & more clearly because he cant be heard at the back of the church. But they are very unlikely to criticise the fundamental aspects of their religion, such as whether it leads to indoctrinating young children with ancient untrue beliefs about an invisible God, heaven & hell, the value of praying & miracles etc. … or criticising the stance that their religions take against such things as homosexuality, abortion clinics, religious education in schools, or tax concessions for religious activities/organisations etc.

It's obviously more likely for atheists or agnostics to be the ones criticising religion. And in particular I think it should go-without-saying that atheists (and others) certainly should speak out against the way Christianity, and Islam in particular, keep getting themselves (i.e. their faithful believers, real individual people) in all manner of violent and confrontational actions around the world.

That's very obvious, and completely undeniable in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, which by now, since 9-11 (that's 2001), must have murdered many hundreds of thousands of innocent people (inc. vast numbers of young children) all around the world. And whatever any apologists say, the people who are doing that, are devout theists who are killing in the name of their religious beliefs, i.e. in the belief that God is commanding them into holy Jihad against the non-believers (or very often, against other Muslims who don't believe quite the exact same wording in parts of their holy books … that's punishable by world-wide mass murder, apparently).

But whilst Christianity is not engaged in anything as utterly appealing as that, it is still a huge force for quite atrocious behaviour around the world, and particularly in the USA. Where (for example) fundamentalist Christians attack staff at abortion clinics, hold rallies condemning homosexuality, attempt to get creationism taught to children in school science classes (ie as an opposition to evolution), sit around in groups refusing medical help for sick children and insisting that God will save the child instead, etc. etc. And in the UK (and probably many other countries), the Christian church, and afaik Islam also, are constantly making all sorts of requests for funding from the UK taxpayers/government, for building religious schools etc.

Do you think reasonable honest people around the world should not be criticising that? Do you think the non-religious should all keep quiet and just let Christianity and Islam carry on with all those same dangerous and bigoted activities, indoctrinating each new generation of children into all those same beliefs?




Another reason I should have hesitated to reply, is because my laptop is 99% dead, and it's likely I won't be able to make further posts for while.

Last edited by IanS; 15th August 2017 at 03:41 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 05:18 AM   #140
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,492
I'm sorry I wouldn't be able to reply in full to your thorough, well articulated post. In my case it's for lack of language abilities (it's those parts of my brain which are 99% fried by designed, and now that the clouds of atheroma are gathering in the horizon there's no chance to change it )

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But - when you say "anti theists", you sound as if you are criticising atheists or others who are critical of religions such as Christianity and Islam. Is that right? You are saying that atheists (or others) are doing something wrong or being unreasonable if they are critical of Christianity and Islam?
I'm not calling atheists names when I say antitheists. There's no direct link between atheism and criticising theism. I don't know any atheist who do that, maybe because I live in Restoftheworldia and not in the USA. I've met one or two false atheists in my time, those who where religious freaks or grew in a oppressive religious environment and weren't able to "shake it off" from their psyche, so neuroticly felt once an again in angry criticism against religion. That I call antitheism and I find its believers to be present here operating en masse and knocking on every mental door with the same zeal of a testículo de Jehová (testigo de Jehova = Jehovah's witness; testículo de Jehová = Jehova's testes/little witness).

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Obviously theists themselves are not likely to be very critical of their religion. They might say that their local church should have a better car park, or that the Vicar/Priest should speak louder & more clearly because he cant be heard at the back of the church. But they are very unlikely to criticise the fundamental aspects of their religion, such as whether it leads to indoctrinating young children with ancient untrue beliefs about an invisible God, heaven & hell, the value of praying & miracles etc. … or criticising the stance that their religions take against such things as homosexuality, abortion clinics, religious education in schools, or tax concessions for religious activities/organisations etc.
Are you saying that you feel the need to overcompensate that by filling the void and exert the criticism than 20 of them are lacking? Isn't that just trying to indoctrinate them into disbelief? (that's exactly what I call antitheism: the indoctrination into disbelief; that's why I said about them they believe in the god Empty Set)

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
It's obviously more likely for atheists or agnostics to be the ones criticising religion. And in particular I think it should go-without-saying that atheists (and others) certainly should speak out against the way Christianity, and Islam in particular, keep getting themselves (i.e. their faithful believers, real individual people) in all manner of violent and confrontational actions around the world.
That sounded to me as if you were saying that on the fact that a white would-be mass murdered recently run over some folks and killed one, people of other races should warn about the danger that white people pose. If that's the point, that hurts my feelings, as I am white.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
That's very obvious, and completely undeniable in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, which by now, since 9-11 (that's 2001), must have murdered many hundreds of thousands of innocent people (inc. vast numbers of young children) all around the world. And whatever any apologists say, the people who are doing that, are devout theists who are killing in the name of their religious beliefs, i.e. in the belief that God is commanding them into holy Jihad against the non-believers (or very often, against other Muslims who don't believe quite the exact same wording in parts of their holy books … that's punishable by world-wide mass murder, apparently).
Again, beware of white people. We tend to drive over others we don't like .

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But whilst Christianity is not engaged in anything as utterly appealing as that, it is still a huge force for quite atrocious behaviour around the world, and particularly in the USA. Where (for example) fundamentalist Christians attack staff at abortion clinics, hold rallies condemning homosexuality, attempt to get creationism taught to children in school science classes (ie as an opposition to evolution), sit around in groups refusing medical help for sick children and insisting that God will save the child instead, etc. etc. And in the UK (and probably many other countries), the Christian church, and afaik Islam also, are constantly making all sorts of requests for funding from the UK taxpayers/government, for building religious schools etc.
Appealing or appalling? (besides the obvious alibi "I forgot the ", think about the lapsus calami -written Freudian slip-)

I think that crime should be dealt as crime, independently of the motivation behind. And I think that when a religious organization crosses the boundary of religion and gets political it requires all the political response that is needed. A political response.

The rest is just crap: a rich dude went scot-free because he paid a fancy lawyer and used to play golf with the judge's husband: let's hate rich people, lawyers and judges! There's something inherently bad in having money or being familiar with the law!

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Do you think reasonable honest people around the world should not be criticising that? Do you think the non-religious should all keep quiet and just let Christianity and Islam carry on with all those same dangerous and bigoted activities, indoctrinating each new generation of children into all those same beliefs?
Where do I start? To be brief, I don't think black people should fight whites and prevent us from reproducing and indoctrinate our children into hatred as we usually do ( for the sake of those "Idiocy literalists")

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Another reason I should have hesitated to reply, is because my laptop is 99% dead, and it's likely I won't be able to make further posts for while.
Don't worry, I'll look forward to your future posts in this thread.

What I like to make totally clear is that I'm a postheist. That means I regard believing in ghosts, lucky charms, crhists who heal and save or reincarnation are all just things belonging to the evolutive past of mankind. And yes, I pretty look down to those who are engaged in those fantasies as well to those who fight against those fantasies with religious zeal because they are still there. I feel like I'm around 8 year-olds. I only try to live together with harmony while waiting for them to grow up. Unless they sign up in a forum about scepticism and try to get control...
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 11:39 PM   #141
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,505
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Sure: Define reality in a non self-referential way.
So you've got nothing of value. No surprise there.

If you want a description that doesn't invoke the words "real" or "reality," though, wikipedia is unsurprisingly handy. This is pretty basic stuff that you're trying to argue against, after all.

Quote:
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] Reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes that which has existed, exists, or will exist.


Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I hesitate to get into this discussion, and I should probably just ignore the above remarks, because I know from many years here (and on previous forums such as RatSkep and the old Richard Dawkins Forum) that even atheists here often react with hostility if anyone has the temerity to say that all of us should actually be anti-theist in the sense of speaking out against many aspects of religious beliefs & practices in Christianity and Islam (to take the two biggest and most obvious worldwide religions).
To answer a bit separately than aleCcowaN, generally speaking, when anti-theist is used negatively, it tends to refer especially to those anti-theists who are actively hostile to theism and are willing to descend into poor and quite unreasonably biased reasoning to support their position. To give an example, though, in another thread, ProgrammerGodJordan tried to claim that all religions should be purged because they contrast with science. That would be pretty clear anti-theist behavior in the negative sense, given the inherent inaccuracy and irrational reasoning. On the other hand, pointing out that a particular religion should be purged if the effects are clearly and distinctly more harmful than the other realistic alternatives (Suicide cults tend to be pretty clearly more harmful than the alternatives, for example), be they religious or not, tends to not actually count as anti-theist, though it could potentially become such depending on how one determines what is harmful. The focus there that shows what's actually being opposed is important.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But - when you say "anti theists", you sound as if you are criticising atheists or others who are critical of religions such as Christianity and Islam. Is that right? You are saying that atheists (or others) are doing something wrong or being unreasonable if they are critical of Christianity and Islam?
It's only really criticism when the anti-theists are not basing their words on valid reasoning or unbiased truth. Quite a few posters have shown tendencies to do such, unfortunately, and it's problematic behavior regardless of the subject and side being argued.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Another reason I should have hesitated to reply, is because my laptop is 99% dead, and it's likely I won't be able to make further posts for while.
Luckily, forum discussion threads tend not to require immediate responses.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 15th August 2017 at 11:53 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 12:34 AM   #142
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,796
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

But - when you say "anti theists", you sound as if you are criticising atheists or others who are critical of religions such as Christianity and Islam. Is that right? You are saying that atheists (or others) are doing something wrong or being unreasonable if they are critical of Christianity and Islam?
I'm sorry I wouldn't be able to reply in full to your thorough, well articulated post. In my case it's for lack of language abilities (it's those parts of my brain which are 99% fried by designed, and now that the clouds of atheroma are gathering in the horizon there's no chance to change it )

I'm not calling atheists names when I say antitheists. There's no direct link between atheism and criticising theism. I don't know any atheist who do that, maybe because I live in Restoftheworldia and not in the USA. I've met one or two false atheists in my time, those who where religious freaks or grew in a oppressive religious environment and weren't able to "shake it off" from their psyche, so neuroticly felt once an again in angry criticism against religion. That I call antitheism and I find its believers to be present here operating en masse and knocking on every mental door with the same zeal of a testículo de Jehová (testigo de Jehova = Jehovah's witness; testículo de Jehová = Jehova's testes/little witness).

On the contrary - I think there is very clearly a link between atheism and anti-theism. I think its perfectly obvious that when people stop believing in God, and stop believing that people in any society should believe what the churches and mosques are preaching to them about what they say are the commands of God from the holy books, and the “true” stories of their history of what Mohamed and Jesus “definitely” did etc., then those people who no longer believe that the God exists at all (ie atheists), certainly should be speaking out to say that such religious preaching is a dangerous and highly undesirable thing in the 21st century. And particularly so as those religions and their most prominent leaders and preachers are especially targeting very young children with those false beliefs.

I am not suggesting that we all go around looking for conflict with religious people and confronting people at the local church or mosque. And I certainly don't do that myself. In fact I almost always steer completely clear of any discussion about religion with any religious friends and neighbours (or anyone outside of an internet forum like this). But I do think that it cannot possibly right for us just to ignore the very obvious dangers of religions like Christianity or Islam, so that we just continually turn the other cheek as if it was perfectly all right to let these religions carry on the way they are.


Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Obviously theists themselves are not likely to be very critical of their religion. They might say that their local church should have a better car park, or that the Vicar/Priest should speak louder & more clearly because he cant be heard at the back of the church. But they are very unlikely to criticise the fundamental aspects of their religion, such as whether it leads to indoctrinating young children with ancient untrue beliefs about an invisible God, heaven & hell, the value of praying & miracles etc. … or criticising the stance that their religions take against such things as homosexuality, abortion clinics, religious education in schools, or tax concessions for religious activities/organisations etc.

Are you saying that you feel the need to overcompensate that by filling the void and exert the criticism than 20 of them are lacking? Isn't that just trying to indoctrinate them into disbelief? (that's exactly what I call antitheism: the indoctrination into disbelief; that's why I said about them they believe in the god Empty Set)

I don't think it's “overcompensation”. I am just agreeing with many other people who have voiced the same very obvious criticism of current-day Christianity and Islam. There should be no disagreement about that (because it's unarguable how dangerous those religions are), and it should be unacceptable in the 21st century for religions to be still carrying on like this all around the world.


Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
It's obviously more likely for atheists or agnostics to be the ones criticising religion. And in particular I think it should go-without-saying that atheists (and others) certainly should speak out against the way Christianity, and Islam in particular, keep getting themselves (i.e. their faithful believers, real individual people) in all manner of violent and confrontational actions around the world.
That sounded to me as if you were saying that on the fact that a white would-be mass murdered recently run over some folks and killed one, people of other races should warn about the danger that white people pose. If that's the point, that hurts my feelings, as I am white.

I said not one word about black or white. That has zero to do with the conversation. The issue here is entirely about religious beliefs, and whether organised religions such as Christianity and Islam should be allowed to continue persuading & indoctrinating all sorts of people, inc. very young children, with such untrue, outdated and extremely dangerous beliefs.


Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
That's very obvious, and completely undeniable in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, which by now, since 9-11 (that's 2001), must have murdered many hundreds of thousands of innocent people (inc. vast numbers of young children) all around the world. And whatever any apologists say, the people who are doing that, are devout theists who are killing in the name of their religious beliefs, i.e. in the belief that God is commanding them into holy Jihad against the non-believers (or very often, against other Muslims who don't believe quite the exact same wording in parts of their holy books … that's punishable by world-wide mass murder, apparently).
Again, beware of white people. We tend to drive over others we don't like .

No. Again you have for some strange reason decided to start talking about racist issues, even though it's no part of the discussion and no such thing was mentioned at all.

The point is entirely confined to religious belief, and the consequences of that. And as I say, it's really undeniable that there are all sorts of bad effects from that (in fact utterly appalling effects from religion … worldwide mass murder in religiously driven wars, being the most obvious).


Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But whilst Christianity is not engaged in anything as utterly appealing as that, it is still a huge force for quite atrocious behaviour around the world, and particularly in the USA. Where (for example) fundamentalist Christians attack staff at abortion clinics, hold rallies condemning homosexuality, attempt to get creationism taught to children in school science classes (ie as an opposition to evolution), sit around in groups refusing medical help for sick children and insisting that God will save the child instead, etc. etc. And in the UK (and probably many other countries), the Christian church, and afaik Islam also, are constantly making all sorts of requests for funding from the UK taxpayers/government, for building religious schools etc.

Appealing or appalling? (besides the obvious alibi "I forgot the ", think about the lapsus calami -written Freudian slip-)

I think that crime should be dealt as crime, independently of the motivation behind. And I think that when a religious organization crosses the boundary of religion and gets political it requires all the political response that is needed. A political response.

The rest is just crap: a rich dude went scot-free because he paid a fancy lawyer and used to play golf with the judge's husband: let's hate rich people, lawyers and judges! There's something inherently bad in having money or being familiar with the law!

OK, well now you gone completely off the subject into some sort of private thoughts about something quite odd sounding.

But the issue of religion is a very serious issue, it's not a game. Vast numbers of people are being killed in the most appalling ways, by religious fundamentalists who insist that they should seize power in various Muslims lands, because they believe God has given them that right and instructed them to wage a holy war. And in many parts of the world, e.g. the USA (but also to a lesser extent everywhere in Europe too), generations of children are being raised in religious homes, and sent to religious schools, where they are indoctrinated with 2000 year old beliefs in superstitions of spirits in the sky … that's seriously anti-educational, and in particular it's anti-science education, because it almost always & inevitably ends up with the believers having to reject scientific discoveries such as evolution ... because the believers can see very clearly that evolution is completely incompatible with their belief that the bible is true when it says that God made Man.


Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Do you think reasonable honest people around the world should not be criticising that? Do you think the non-religious should all keep quiet and just let Christianity and Islam carry on with all those same dangerous and bigoted activities, indoctrinating each new generation of children into all those same beliefs?

Where do I start? To be brief, I don't think black people should fight whites and prevent us from reproducing and indoctrinate our children into hatred as we usually do ( for the sake of those "Idiocy literalists")

OK, this is the same thing again, i.e. taking the conversation into an entirely unconnected discussion about how you are concerned about racist prejudices in society. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not atheists and others should speak out against what are quite obviously dangerous and undesirable effects of Christianity and Islam that still continue around the world today.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:27 AM   #143
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,492
Allow me reply by parts

Originally Posted by IanS

On the contrary - I think there is very clearly a link between atheism and anti-theism. I think its perfectly obvious that when people stop believing in God, and stop believing that people in any society should believe what the churches and mosques are preaching to them about what they say are the commands of God from the holy books, and the “true” stories of their history of what Mohamed and Jesus “definitely” did etc., then those people who no longer believe that the God exists at all (ie atheists), certainly should be speaking out to say that such religious preaching is a dangerous and highly undesirable thing in the 21st century. And particularly so as those religions and their most prominent leaders and preachers are especially targeting very young children with those false beliefs.
There's no link between atheism and anti-theism but the fact anti-theists use atheism as a mask. The real link is between theism and anti-theism: they are two sides of the same coin. The rest of the text I'm quoting is very telling about that. It describes a very particular kind of "atheist", one that once believed and stop believing. I always wondered how that's possible. You are describing some kind of twelve-step program former believer who never really shook it off.

I'm a former smoker and I'm not blaming tobacco companies for my deteriorated lungs. Yesterday the underground wasn't working downtown because of Mike Pence's visit, and I was waiting for the bus at some stop. The girl standing in queue before me was smoking and the smoke and smell made me feel uncomfortable. I said nothing because I tortured people the same way, even in closed spaces, during 25 years. I have no moral standing to ask people on the spot to stop smoking because it causes me inconveniences.

If someone once "believed in god" (what the hell does "to believe in god" mean? Is it that really possible in a healthy brain? is it a Santa Claus kind of thing?) this someone should refrain themselves from pontificating, preaching and predicating about "the evils of religion".

But I do my bit to help society to get rid of tobacco. I share my experience about quitting, but only in a conversation of two, when the other person says they are trying to quit or they've just failed (generally with taxi drivers). I have also made some unwanted remarks to teenagers in the street who were smoking their "first one" and felt to be cool grown-ups. I've said in some cases "you're about to burn yourself ... teenagers who pose as smokers are holding their cigarettes in and odd fashion because it's obvious they're faking it. For a real smoker a cigarette is part of his body, so he doesn't have to be aware of what he's doing with the cigarette when he's not sucking it ... when you look some kid who's holding a cigarette in an odd fashion you immediately know he's trying too hard to look like an adult". When in groups, my words cause the "non smokers" to start mocking the "grown-up", what I judge to be a deterrent and maybe saved a couple of kids from falling into the habit.

Back into the vice of religion, including anti-theism, it's the same thing. You can act over few people. You should never generalize. You should pay attention to teenagers who are the group who is more prone to be "mystical". And you should always favour a person to drift into their own personally adapted concept of "god" and not into nothingness "because you should be sceptical". Anti-theists who try to promote what they believe to be "atheism" do a really lousy job. They're at odds with almost everyone. They irritate and make most people more stubborn about their Santa Clauses.

When I was a smoker so many people told me that I should quit; that it would be better for me; that I would enjoy flavours and smells and breath easily. They irritated me, why? because they're only tried to take away something dear to me without really giving anything in exchange.

The same way, anti-theists campaigning against religion, or talking about the evils of religion, only want to take away something that other people hold dear. They want just them to stop believing because it bothers the anti-theists, maybe by remembering them when they were manipulated through their religious feelings and vulnerability, complex that they couldn't resolve even when they amputated that very part of their self and the wound never really healed up. An anti-theist who believe to be an atheist will never be socially valuable in the philosophical fields until they solve their inner conflicts.

Originally Posted by IanS
I am not suggesting that we all go around looking for conflict with religious people and confronting people at the local church or mosque. And I certainly don't do that myself. In fact I almost always steer completely clear of any discussion about religion with any religious friends and neighbours (or anyone outside of an internet forum like this). But I do think that it cannot possibly right for us just to ignore the very obvious dangers of religions like Christianity or Islam, so that we just continually turn the other cheek as if it was perfectly all right to let these religions carry on the way they are.
Caution, because that could translate into: I can't fight the dealer in the corner so I'll fight the cartels (starting with the head honcho, the Pope).

I'd rather say you are not willing or capable of doing retail sales, but somewhat you want to discuss to become a wholesaler. "The obvious dangers of religion" is just a construct in your mind, that you may share with others with similar life stories and mental make-ups, what indeed constitutes just another belief.

We have a saying "Dios los cría y el viento los amontona" (God rears them and the wind lumps them together). It's not strange that failed non-theists converge in web forums to fight "religion". It's the ultimate fantasy that they are "doing something about it" without really doing anything. And being this a site about scepticism I feel obligated to point that fact and point to the self-deception.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 05:13 AM   #144
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,492
Originally Posted by IanS

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post

Are you saying that you feel the need to overcompensate that by filling the void and exert the criticism than 20 of them are lacking? Isn't that just trying to indoctrinate them into disbelief? (that's exactly what I call antitheism: the indoctrination into disbelief; that's why I said about them they believe in the god Empty Set)

I don't think it's “overcompensation”. I am just agreeing with many other people who have voiced the same very obvious criticism of current-day Christianity and Islam. There should be no disagreement about that (because it's unarguable how dangerous those religions are), and it should be unacceptable in the 21st century for religions to be still carrying on like this all around the world.
And, what's the plan? Religion free by the 23rd century? That is sheer, unadulterated anti-theism in action.

If religion interferes with civil life you must fight the interference, not religion itself. If you jump to "religion will always try to do that so we must fight religion" that is like asking all the dogs to be killed just to avoid the risk of rabies.

And here comes the essence of what I consider to be your blind spot.

Originally Posted by IanS
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post

That sounded to me as if you were saying that on the fact that a white would-be mass murdered recently run over some folks and killed one, people of other races should warn about the danger that white people pose. If that's the point, that hurts my feelings, as I am white.

I said not one word about black or white. That has zero to do with the conversation. The issue here is entirely about religious beliefs, and whether organised religions such as Christianity and Islam should be allowed to continue persuading & indoctrinating all sorts of people, inc. very young children, with such untrue, outdated and extremely dangerous beliefs.


Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post

Again, beware of white people. We tend to drive over others we don't like .

No. Again you have for some strange reason decided to start talking about racist issues, even though it's no part of the discussion and no such thing was mentioned at all.

The point is entirely confined to religious belief, and the consequences of that. And as I say, it's really undeniable that there are all sorts of bad effects from that (in fact utterly appalling effects from religion … worldwide mass murder in religiously driven wars, being the most obvious).


Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post


Where do I start? To be brief, I don't think black people should fight whites and prevent us from reproducing and indoctrinate our children into hatred as we usually do ( for the sake of those "Idiocy literalists")

OK, this is the same thing again, i.e. taking the conversation into an entirely unconnected discussion about how you are concerned about racist prejudices in society. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not atheists and others should speak out against what are quite obviously dangerous and undesirable effects of Christianity and Islam that still continue around the world today.
You were being a bit bigot about religion and blaming Islam for ISIS-like behaviour and Christianity for who knows what, so I change Muslim/Christian into White and tailored examples departing from your own words and, suddenly, you can't see the bigotry in action. Surprise! Bigots don't think to be doing anything wrong.

Likely statements like "religion is the cause of the behaviour of religious freaks and what gives them steam" are like saying that "having a penis is the cause of the behaviour of rapists" if you don't like the white/coloured analogy.

Will you understand it this time or are we to go on ignoring the elephant in the room?

Traumatized former believers and/or people who was abused by believers must solve their pending issues before flocking into forums to discuss "the evils of religion and the benefits of having none".

And again, what does all that "to believe in god" crap mean? It didn't ever make sense to me, that's why my religious mother didn't send me to catechism so I couldn't drive mad the priest with my questions and criticism. Yet I was soiled by the rite of baptism, because I wouldn't be able to defend myself. That's the only thing I regret (not that a big thing).
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 05:35 AM   #145
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,796
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
And, what's the plan? Religion free by the 23rd century? That is sheer, unadulterated anti-theism in action.

If religion interferes with civil life you must fight the interference, not religion itself. If you jump to "religion will always try to do that so we must fight religion" that is like asking all the dogs to be killed just to avoid the risk of rabies.

And here comes the essence of what I consider to be your blind spot.



You were being a bit bigot about religion and blaming Islam for ISIS-like behaviour and Christianity for who knows what, so I change Muslim/Christian into White and tailored examples departing from your own words and, suddenly, you can't see the bigotry in action. Surprise! Bigots don't think to be doing anything wrong.

Likely statements like "religion is the cause of the behaviour of religious freaks and what gives them steam" are like saying that "having a penis is the cause of the behaviour of rapists" if you don't like the white/coloured analogy.

Will you understand it this time or are we to go on ignoring the elephant in the room?

Traumatized former believers and/or people who was abused by believers must solve their pending issues before flocking into forums to discuss "the evils of religion and the benefits of having none".

And again, what does all that "to believe in god" crap mean? It didn't ever make sense to me, that's why my religious mother didn't send me to catechism so I couldn't drive mad the priest with my questions and criticism. Yet I was soiled by the rite of baptism, because I wouldn't be able to defend myself. That's the only thing I regret (not that a big thing).

OK, that's enough.

It's clear now that you are just here on a personal ego trip, and wasting other peoples time.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 03:40 PM   #146
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,592
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Have you found any counter evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I have had it on plates at counters as well as tables many times!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:25 PM   #147
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,492
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, that's enough.

It's clear now that you are just here on a personal ego trip, and wasting other peoples time.
Yes, because blaming Christianity and Islam for those who crash planes or burn abortion clinics is a rational thing to do . Violating fundamental right is the rational thing to do too .

Knock it off, pal. It seems just Wonder234 hadn't the right to believe and was pushed out. S/He hasn't come back since then. Good job!

Antitheists here nauseate me: they are just like 8 y.o. kids trying to find lots of 5 y.o. who think Santa is real to tell them they have been deceived, mock them and, when possible, make them cry. That's their moral and intellectual stature.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 02:33 AM   #148
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,505
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
And again, what does all that "to believe in god" crap mean?
To accept the existence of some god. To actually believe that it really does exist, much like believing that, say, angler fish exist, even if we haven't visited the deep sea and seen them personally. That part's really simple. What does that actually mean? First, which god? Different religions and god concepts tend to end up leading to different answers. In cases like Islam and Christianity, there are a number of answers, for that matter. By the sound of it, you'd be unlikely to find any of them particularly worth your time, though.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, that's enough.

It's clear now that you are just here on a personal ego trip, and wasting other peoples time.
Quite the reaction to having to have things that went over your head explained quite bluntly. It really should have been quite obvious that he was using analogy, in the first place, though, given that his usage was made pretty clear from the start... and that he was raising a few fair points that were at least worthy of discussion, though you largely tried to dismiss them, seemingly without paying attention to why they were being made in the first place and how meaningful they could be to the topic.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Yes, because blaming Christianity and Islam for those who crash planes or burn abortion clinics is a rational thing to do . Violating fundamental right is the rational thing to do too .
On the other hand, trying to dismiss the ways that some religions contribute towards those things happening is also just as rational a thing to do as what you condemn. Not all systems of belief have the same consequences for embracing them, which is part of how some religions have distinctly nastier tendencies than others, at their heart. Failing to recognize that is foolish. On the other hand, overgeneralizing either the good or the bad is also foolish, of course.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 18th August 2017 at 02:35 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 03:21 AM   #149
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,096
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
To accept the existence of some god. To actually believe that it really does exist, much like believing that, say, angler fish exist, even if we haven't visited the deep sea and seen them personally. That part's really simple. What does that actually mean? First, which god? Different religions and god concepts tend to end up leading to different answers. In cases like Islam and Christianity, there are a number of answers, for that matter. By the sound of it, you'd be unlikely to find any of them particularly worth your time, though.
It always seemed more complex to me than your angler fish analogy. Because, bound up in the notion of existence is the notion of "properties of this thing I claim exist." So, I can handle a fish - even a very strange fish I've never seen - but God is in a different category.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 03:40 AM   #150
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,505
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
It always seemed more complex to me than your angler fish analogy. Because, bound up in the notion of existence is the notion of "properties of this thing I claim exist." So, I can handle a fish - even a very strange fish I've never seen - but God is in a different category.
Sure. And as I continued to say after the analogy, what the god supposedly is in the first place can vary significantly. The angler fish part was simply an example of a belief that would generally be held in a similar way. It's pretty much just treated as a fact, in other words.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.